<p>-loved UChicago in theory and thought it was incredible but I just got back from my prospie visit and I've fallen out of love. </p>
<ul>
<li><p>I want to study something in the humanities realm and I know that UChicago and Penn are relatively comparable in those fields, with UC being slightly higher in rankings. What I am more concerned about is social life.</p></li>
<li><p>I've heard from a UC student and have gotten the feeling that first year social life is Greek-dominated at UC since there really is nothing else going on. Is this true? I know that Penn has an active Greek scene as well and I'm fine with that as long as there is an alternative (dorm parties, 10-15 people, actually good music, good conversation, not rape-y, etc) but that alternative doesn't seem to exist at UC. </p></li>
<li><p>at UC i noticed that the students are mostly divided into the quirkyquirkyquirky socially awkward ones and the athletes with little to no middle ground, which is where I definitely fit. Is Penn more diverse in that respect? </p></li>
<li><p>UC does the house system and Penn does as well but it seems to me that at Penn, your house doesn't necessarily determine your group of friends but I think the opposite is true at UC. Is that true? </p></li>
</ul>
<p>Chicago beats Penn in the humanities, from an academic standpoint. But Penn has an amazing career placement support system and the school’s placement record looks very impressive. </p>
<p>and Penn has at times been ranked higher than Chicago in:</p>
<ol>
<li>Art History (ranked one place higher than Chicago in NRC 1990s, and 4 places below Chicago in NRC 2010);</li>
<li>Classics (ranked 9 places above Chicago in NRC 2010, and 3 places below Chicago in NRC 1990s).</li>
</ol>
<p>Further, while not ranked as high as Chicago, Penn has consistently ranked among the top 10 in Music and Religion.</p>
<p>So it’s not accurate to say that “Chicago beats Penn in the humanities.” At the very least, Penn TIES Chicago in the humanities, with the edge going to Penn in several fields.</p>
<p>But the bottom line is that these two schools are quite comparable in terms of academic excellence at the undergraduate level, and the choice between them is really a matter of personal preference and fit. Look at the whole picture including campus and campus life, location, breadth and depth of academic offerings, etc., and then just rely on your gut as to which school feels like the best fit. Really, at this level of academic excellence, it’s that simple, and you can’t go wrong with either choice.</p>
<p>So number 1 in Music and Religion as well, but Penn is top 10 as well. Quite far from a tie. I do agree that its all about fit at this level though.</p>
<p>OP, social life at Chicago does have greek life at its core. That’s not to say that there aren’t great apartment parties (which are usually better than frat parties IMO). The alternative most certainly does exist, but if someone said that it would be more accessible at Penn, I would probably believe them.</p>
<p>I’d like to think that I’m part of the middle ground, and am certainly not alone. In fact, I’d go as far as to say those two groups are numerical minorities (probably 15% each), with the middle ground taking the remaining portion. Once again, UPenn is at least as diverse in this respect (maybe too far, IMO, with much fewer of the quirky types)</p>
<p>The house system is one of my favorite things at the college, and most of my peers agree. Your housemates are more like your family than friends, looking out for you and helping you more than drinking with you. They serve as a launchpad to meet people and make friends out of, but if you ever need comfort, you can count on them. They add a lot to the college experience, with frequents house events (free/cheap meals/tickets to musicals/sports events) and IM competitions (from quiz and karaoke to midnight soccer).</p>
<p>Is there anything in particular I could address regarding your prospie experience? The fact that you fell out of love surprises me, especially since the things that most prospies are most surprised about is how “normal” the college is, which seems to be something you are looking for.</p>
<p>45 Percenter: In most people’s books, humanities and languages are both standalone discipline, that’s why in many large schools, they have humanities & arts departments, and another for languages department. I could be wrong, but that was I was thinking when I posted earlier. </p>
<p>Although Chicago is slightly stronger than Penn in the Humanities, Penn more than holds its own, and if the OP feels that Penn is a better fit, then I think he/she should go with it.</p>
<p>Both are terrific world-class universities that will provide more academic opportunities with top-fight professors than you will be able to take advantage of in 4 years, equal credibility when applying to graduate schools or for jobs, and longevity with regard to name recognition where it matters most. </p>
<p>Pick the one where you feel most comfortable and believe you will be happiest. You have been blessed with two outstanding alternatives. </p>
<p>No, not “cherry picking,” just DISCERNING. The undisputed gold standard for ranking the quality and reputation of doctoral programs in the US–and hence the rankings most relied upon for assessing the quality of institutions in particular academic fields–are those of the National Research Council (NRC). Even the University of Chicago page to which YOU linked acknowledges that:</p>
<p>Very few, if any, US academics would look to the THES or QS rankings as a comprehensive and valid measure of the relative strength of US institutions in specific fields, ESPECIALLY when those rankings conflict with the NRC rankings in those particular fields.</p>
<p>Additionally, the THES and QS rankings in “Humanities” in general, as opposed to rankings in specific fields that comprise the “humanities,” are further suspect in that there’s no general field of “humanities” that’s studied as a specific academic discipline at the undergraduate or graduate level at the overwhelming majority of top US universities.</p>
<p>Moreover, the rankings of fields in the social sciences are completely irrelevant to this discussion, since I was responding only to RML’s statement that “Chicago beats Penn in the humanities, from an academic standpoint.” Although again, while Chicago generally ranks higher than Penn in some of the “social sciences” as defined by the NRC (10 or fewer places higher in Economics and Sociology, more of a separation in Political Science), Penn generally ties or ranks higher than Chicago in other “social sciences” as defined by the NRC (Anthropology, History, and Psychology).</p>
<p>So again, in the “humanities” as defined by the NRC, Penn consistently ranks higher than Chicago in 4 fields–English, Comparative Literature, Linguistics, and Romance Languages–essentially ties Chicago over time in 2 fields–Art History and Classics–and trails Chicago by less than 10 places in 2 fields–Music and Religion.</p>
<p>Accordingly, relying solely on the highly esteemed rankings of the National Research Council, I stand by my original statement: it’s NOT accurate to say that “Chicago beats Penn in the humanities.” At the very least, Penn TIES Chicago in the humanities, with the edge going to Penn in at least 4 fields. That is, unless one disregards what even The University of Chicago admits is “the nation’s most comprehensive and highly regarded assessment of university doctoral programs.” ;)</p>
<p>But to again reinforce what we’ve all been saying here: for an undergraduate liberal arts education, these two schools are comparable, and the decision to attend one or the other should be based on personal preference and fit based on the total package. Academically, they’re both phenomenal choices.</p>
<p>Additionally, I think that foreign languages–and especially Romance Languages–are traditionally considered to be part of the “humanities,” especially given that at the university level (as both undergraduate major and graduate field), they include the study of the literature and culture related to the languages, and not just the languages themselves. Similarly, the academic study of Art History, Music, and Religion as social and cultural phenomena–as opposed to studying the practice or performance of those fields in a fine arts, conservatory, or divinity school context–are also considered part of the “humanities” in higher education.</p>
<p>Again I ask regarding the bold, italicized language: based on what? Certainly not based on both the 1990s and 2010 NRC rankings, which I think we’d both agree are the gold standard of academic program rankings in the US. ;)</p>
<p>And regarding all your points about how the NRC is still considered the gold standard.</p>
<p>That page was from 1995. Things have changed since then, and few would acknowledge NRCs position as the gold standard of academic rankings. Especially not for undergraduate programs, which is what the author of this thread is concerned with. In fact, the NRC rankings for 2010 have actually been subject to a lot of criticism, from members of the NRC committee itself, especially since the ranking does not include ANY measure of reputational standing or perceived quality. For instance, the linguistics ranking puts UMass Amherst at 3rd and MIT at 9th, even though MIT is widely regarded to have the strongest linguistic program in the world (esp. for doctoral studies), something that the 1995 NRC rankings recognized, putting it first by a huge margin.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I cited rankings from at least 3 sources, which make up the most widely cited of the national and international rankings today, (USNews, THE, and QS. ARWU would round the list out but they don’t have any rankings for the humanities). </p>
<p>Now, while you are correct, that in the NRC:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On the other hand, Chicago outranks Penn by a small margin in the humanities (even ignoring the social sciences component) in USNews, and outranks Penn by a landslide in the other rankings (sometimes by 3 digit numbers, but lets not go there). These rankings embody the same factors as the NRC, including teaching quality (esp USNews) and scholarly output (esp. THE), but most importantly, they include the reputation and perceived quality of an institution. </p>
<p>Instead, the NRC focuses on measuring scholarly output, but as a study on the NRC concluded, “We caution against using the 2010 NRC data or metrics for any assessment-oriented study of research productivity”. Furthermore, the NRC attaches weight to other criteria that it has been strongly criticized for, including diversity, aid, etc. and there have been reports of wild inaccuracies in their data. </p>
<p>Oh, and lets use both the R-rankings instead of the S-Rankings (which you appear to have used) of the NRC, 2010. In fact, both components are considered of equal importance (for instance, see Cornell’s statement on the subject). The R-rankings seem to be slightly better (for instance, MIT is number 1 in linguistics, as it should be)</p>
<p>Its not even close, with Penn outranking Chicago in just Classics, and Literature, while they are pretty close in the Languages (haven’t included them here). The story is even worse if you include some of the social sciences</p>
<p>The THE and QS rankings are RARELY, IF EVER, cited in the US as authoritative rankings of US graduate programs in specific fields. In fact, I’ve yet to see it. But if you have any links to the contrary, please share them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If we use the NRC classification of “humanities,” the only “humanity” ranked by US News is English, in which Penn is ranked at #4, and Chicago is ranked at #8:</p>
<p>But even if we include History as a humanity (although it’s often now classified as a social science), then US News currently ranks Chicago at #4 and Penn at #9:</p>
<p>Given that these numbers vary slightly each time these rankings are issued, I’d call that a functional tie in the humanities.</p>
<p>So given the NRC rankings (both 1990s and 2010) and US News rankings, and given that the THE and QS rankings of specific departments are essentially irrelevant to US academics and grad school applicants, it’s clear that Chicago is not “better” than Penn in the “humanities,” as that is generally defined and perceived among academics in the US.</p>
<p>But I think we’ve beaten this poor dead horse enough. ;)</p>
<p>I agree, but I think it would be better to sum our discussion up by saying that if we consider the non-reputational aspect (ie, the NRC rankings), Penn and Chicago are peers in the Humanities, producing great scholars and scholarly research (I would still give the leg up to Chicago). However, the reputational component skews things in Chicago’s favor, by a substantial margin. </p>
[Sigh.] No, it doesn’t, taking into account ALL NRC Rankings–1990s, 2010 S-rankings, and 2010 R-rankings. But I think we’ve laid out more than enough data at this point for other readers of this thread to draw their own conclusions (if they’re even still reading ). And this is all kind of silly anyway given that we’re talking about rankings of Ph.D. programs, and lumping them together as “humanities” is something that has no relevance in the US graduate school world.</p>
<p>But let’s leave it that you and I (and RML, Alexandre and others in this thread) ALL agree that at the undergraduate level, these two phenomenal schools are comparable peers, and choosing one over the other for an undergraduate liberal arts education should simply be a matter of personal preference and fit. :)</p>
<p>Global concept, sorry your thread has been hijacked with this side discussion about grad schools. </p>
<p>But I agree with the few drowned out voices that you should go on your gut feel at this point, when you have such two strong choices. I really don’t understand why you didn’t explore these social life questions when you were right there on the Chicago campus, since that seems to be your main concern. Maybe check out the individual forums. Sounds like you are leaning toward Penn though.</p>
<p>Not drowned out at all. Everyone involved in “this side discussion” (and I don’t think it was THAT off-topic given that the OP indicated an interest in studying humanities, and references were made to one school being ranked higher than the other in that general area) has stressed that the OP–or anyone choosing between these two schools for an undergraduate liberal arts education–should choose based on gut feeling as to which one is the better personal fit.</p>
<p>You are not alone in your feeling about Chicago. It is an excellent school, but they do tend to market themselves as quirky intellectuals. Many U of C students proudly wear their “The University of Chicago: Where fun comes to die” t shirts for example, or the Mantis Shrimp Essay question for another.</p>
<p>In contrast, Penn students will proudly tell you that they are the “Social Ivy,” and do a better job of working to balance challenging academics and social opportunities.</p>
<p>Neither one of these is inherently better. Some of us embrace our quirky inner nerd and some are more sociable. I would visit both and see which one you are more comfortable with.</p>
). And this is all kind of silly anyway given that we’re talking about rankings of Ph.D. programs, and lumping them together as “humanities” is something that has no relevance in the US graduate school world.</p>